It is NOT that simple, no matter how strenuously you insist it is. When Madoff's Ponzi went bust, the money recovered did NOT go back to his feeder funds for redistribution.

Well put. It's too late in the game to listen to team Ponzi regardless of whether they have been right. You either continue playing or should never have played from the start. I don't find the reasons for not sharing the data very convincing.

If this was a delaying tactic and an excuse by pirate to create more confusion, lets try and be smarter than him, just send him all the details, so he dosen't have another excuse to say that all did not comply. This thing needs to taken to its logical conclusion, and as law goes, " not guilty until proven "

Exactly. Why change the arguments all of a sudden? All investors to bitcoinmax without doubt would have invested directly to btcst if he accepted direct deposits anyway. That's why I find the the objection somehow suspicious; no offense.

the "FIFO" thing was only a side-effect of ordering by USER ID (a number), but it doesn't mean if only only get 50% back later accounts will miss out... if i only get 50% back, then all accounts will get 50% back.

- when you negotiate with Pirate on our behalf, will you accept the first offer or try to get as much as possible from him?

- how will a partial payment (eg 50%) be distributed? Will you simply pay everybody 50% of their current account value, or use the coins to first pay back deposits, taking into account previous withdrawals, to minimize the actual losses of your clients? (SUM(deposits) - SUM(withdrawals) > 0)

- will a partial payment be considered a final settlement, or will you keep on trying to get the rest of the entire payment Pirate owes?

there is many ways to consider splitting the returned funds IF there are any worth splitting .....

i would think the fair"est " (since there is no 100% fair way to decide who gets a haircut ) way is to return the principals of newest people first .......

(im talking about the people who just invested recently and stand to lose near 100% of their principal dont deserve to be raped like this )

(the people who already have taken out MORE than their principal + the ones who were bragging loudly that they cant lose etc ... should be suspended at the back of the payment line,at least until newer folks have their principal back )

You assume that early investors withdrew instead of keeping interest reinvested.This assumption is often wrong.

Your correct ,in those circumstances where no interest has been pulled out then ideally everyone should get their principal back first and then the interest can be fought over

Wasn't it evident from the beginning....Pirate has clearly mentioned in his OP, during the start that " past performance is not a guarantee of future results"...that itself absolves him of any legal action as long as he wasn't using his money for illegal purposes.......so why would what anyone else say about it matter.....lets just get on with taking this episode to a conclusion.

If this was a delaying tactic and an excuse by pirate to create more confusion, lets try and be smarter than him, just send him all the details, so he dosen't have another excuse to say that all did not comply.

Giving scammers the information they ask for when you don't even know why they ask is seldom a good idea.

If this was a delaying tactic and an excuse by pirate to create more confusion, lets try and be smarter than him, just send him all the details, so he dosen't have another excuse to say that all did not comply.

Giving scammers the information they ask for when you don't even know why they ask is seldom a good idea.

If you have an issue, that is your view personally, but I stand by mine, cheers.....what you mentioned is not something relevant in my context of measured options.. " as the law says " not guilty until proven " (not a scam yet)...or you must be judge dredd.......

If you have an issue, that is your view personally, but I stand by mine, cheers.....what you mentioned is not something relevant in my context of measured options.. " as the law says " not guilty until proven " (not a scam yet)...or you must be judge dredd.......

Sure, but that kind of naivety is what got you into this in the first place.

Wasn't it evident from the beginning....Pirate has clearly mentioned in his OP, during the start that " past performance is not a guarantee of future results"...that itself absolves him of any legal action as long as he wasn't using his money for illegal purposes.......so why would what anyone else say about it matter.....lets just get on with taking this episode to a conclusion.

That does not obsolve him of any earnings that he had already stated that the accounts had made. That would only remove him from liability of continuing to pay at a rate that was no longer earnable. It does not mean, 'past performance is not a garuntee of future return of your stated deposit' or earnings...

The whole thing is bullshit. And there is no bankruptcy filing YET in the pacer system from him, his partners or any assumed name that is known for him....

Fact is, he lead all despositers to believe he was flipping BTC>USD<BTC mutliplte times per week. Which means, if he does not have atleast all the deposit+ earnings up to atleast the point he stated a lesser interest then he is lying and/or was lying the entire time about the state of deposits. He is either commiting, commeted fraud or at the very least is negligent of not informing depositors if at any cycle that the funds were losing BTC....

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GAIt is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack

.....just send him all the details, so he dosen't have another excuse to say that all did not comply.

^ The statement above is in contradiction to one of (pirateat40's) Trendon's ORIGINAL RULES WHEN MANY OF OUR ACCOUNTS WERE SETUP.

Loosely quoted (as PIRATE has since deleted all traces of it....)

Quote

...if you borrow or invest other user's money into my program, I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, OR YOU WILL LOSE YOUR ACCOUNT...I ONLY DEAL WITH DIRECT ACCOUNT HOLDERS !

Withholding such information at this point CLEARLY suits the rules and regulations Trendon initially set our accounts up with and the forum administration could very well reach back into page revisions and pull THAT statement out of this were to ever become a legal issue, or his so-called 'grounds' for REFUSING TO RE-PAY LENDERS.

It has become apparent that there is a divide between bitcoinmax lenders who wish payb.tc to pass along their information to pirate as requested, and those who do not.

I do not think that payb.tc should pass along anyones information who does not want it. On the other hand I think that those of us who wish that the information be passed along should not be denied that right.

Given that I do not think there is a whole lot bad that can happen from pirate having this information I have created a form where you can enter the details that pirate requested and I will share the details with pirate only.